--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Matt Weiner" <darwins_bulldog1138_at_y...> wrote: "...CBI actually had > a history tossup with the answer "Japan" the last time I played, and tried > to *give me an award for knowing it.* That level of superficiality is a slap > in the face to anyone interested in world cultures." Yeah, that was pretty bad. 2002 Nationals. The "freeze frame" award went something like "The next award goes to Pitt's Matt Weiner for hearing the words 'Its 1889 constitution' and buzzing in correctly with 'Japan.'" CBI may have thought it amazing, but anyone who plays non-CBI regularly probably would know the answer off that clue, and I'm sure the question was nailed right there in other rooms. Matt was probably playing a once-a-year school that was amazed at the buzz and sent in a freeze frame. That year, I believe they were short on freeze frame entries and had to make some up for some teams. There were many more freeze frame entries in 2003. On the whole female/minority token-question thing in Dave's reply, I appreciate CBI's effort at diversity, and I enjoy playing CBI, but I roll my eyes at questions that go: "Tossup: Blah blah blah. Never heard of blah. Blah-blah-buzz-roar- like-a-tiger-neg-by-me-minus-five-finish-for-the-other-team-blah- blah. For ten points, name this (insert underrepresented group here) blah blah. Answer: 'Never-heard-of Blah'" (I don't actually buzz on these questions because it's blah-blah; that was just a joke) Questions like these are written solely because the person was black, or Hispanic, or female, or whatever. In the way they are written, they seem to imply that had the person been a white male, that question would never have been thought of. If the accomplishments mentioned in the question are not significant enough that the question could be written, and gotten by most teams, without mentioning the race or gender of the answer, then it probably should not be written. On HCASC segregation, let everyone play with the big boys, already! Of course, Howard, Morehouse, and Florida A&M would argue that they *are* the big boys, but could they beat Michigan or Chicago or Berkeley? Those are matchups we very well may never see. The question is: is there a legitimate reason for the separate competitions? HCASC seems a lot like the "National Achievement Scholar" thing with the easier questions (judging on the non-African- American-question difficulty, HCASC lies somewhere between CBI Intramurals and CBI Regionals, tending towards Intramurals). Also, qualification for HCASC is based not on regional or other play, but instead on how soon the schools register. Also, see the fact that teams eligible for HCASC may participate in either HCASC or College Bowl, but not both. If HCASC teams played regular College Bowl, this would increase the diversity of College Bowl more than having separate competitions. Of course, the reason could be that the HBCU's don't want to compete with the non-HBCU's, but I doubt this is the case. If I attended an HBCU and found out about the circuit, then I would have made every effort to start a circuit program. Maybe that's just me. --Josh, P. t. altaica
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST